Help With Excel Spreadsheet (1 Viewer)

MoscowRadio

Flush
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Hey guys. I was wondering if anyone around here could help me make an excel spreadsheet for my league that would allow me to just plug in numbers instead of having to do it all manually. The biggest reason for this is so that I can have all the figures in one place and not run the risk of losing any information.

The formula that I'm using to calculate points is this:

Points = Prize Money / (Players x [Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On]) x 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)

I would really appreciate any help with this. I've never had to use Excel and the formula seems pretty intimidating to me.

Thanks!
 
I have pretty much that exact same spreadsheet for when I ran my league. Its on my laptop at home so if you don't get it by tonight I'll try to remember to send you my spreadsheet.
 
Hey guys. I was wondering if anyone around here could help me make an excel spreadsheet for my league that would allow me to just plug in numbers instead of having to do it all manually. The biggest reason for this is so that I can have all the figures in one place and not run the risk of losing any information.

The formula that I'm using to calculate points is this:

Points = Prize Money / (Players x [Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On]) x 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)

I would really appreciate any help with this. I've never had to use Excel and the formula seems pretty intimidating to me.

Thanks!

You left out the SQRT. You really need that, else you'll get unexpected results.

The original formula was:
Points = Prize Money / SQRT(Players x [Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On]) x 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)
 
Last edited:
Below is the formula that was used in the CT tourneys back in the day. No rebuys or add-ons.

(10*SQRT(n)/SQRT(r))-5)

n = number of players
r = rank (first place = 1)

The player who busted first earns 5 points. People in the league who sat out that game received no points. This formula adjusts for field size but not for relative dollars, but in our league all the buy-ins were equal.

+++++++++

I understand taking rebuys and add-ons into consideration, but I don't get why the initial buy-ins matter. For example, assuming no rebuys and add-ons, if the league has some $20 tournaments and some $40 tournaments, the winner of a 16-player $40 tournament would be awarded 41% more points than the winner of a 16-player $20 tournament. If it's mostly the same players in every game (as in a league) and they like to vary the buy-ins for whatever reason, why should more points be awarded for playing a higher buy-in tournament with the same field of players? I'm not criticizing the practice, but I would like to understand the rationale -- or is it "just because"?



Points.JPG
 
I think a ~slightly~ higher points reward based on higher buy-in amounts (or for no-rebuy events) may be justified, but not to that extreme. Awarded points differing on field size are usually over-rewarded, too. I've yet to hear a rational explanation as to why the amounts are usually so extravagant.
 
If it makes any difference, there won't be any different amounts in any of our games. The buy-ins, rebuys, and add-ons will all be the same throughout the season.
 
If it makes any difference, there won't be any different amounts in any of our games. The buy-ins, rebuys, and add-ons will all be the same throughout the season.

Mine was just a philosophical question. Maybe I should start a separate thread on the subject.
 
I understand taking rebuys and add-ons into consideration, but I don't get why the initial buy-ins matter. For example, assuming no rebuys and add-ons, if the league has some $20 tournaments and some $40 tournaments, the winner of a 16-player $40 tournament would be awarded 41% more points than the winner of a 16-player $20 tournament. If it's mostly the same players in every game (as in a league) and they like to vary the buy-ins for whatever reason, why should more points be awarded for playing a higher buy-in tournament with the same field of players? I'm not criticizing the practice, but I would like to understand the rationale -- or is it "just because"?

Generally speaking, higher buy-ins equal a higher skill level. Players will take the game more seriously if they invested more money. Though this isn't true for every player, on average I think it's true. It's easier to go all-in on the first hand in a $1 buy-in tournament, than in a $1,000 buy-in tournament. You don't risk as much.

Playing in a larger field also means you need to outlast/outplay more players. Making finishing 5th more challenging when playing against 19 players than when your playing against 9.

Of course these numbers lose their relevance when you're always playing for the same buy-in and with the same number of players.

I think a ~slightly~ higher points reward based on higher buy-in amounts (or for no-rebuy events) may be justified, but not to that extreme. Awarded points differing on field size are usually over-rewarded, too. I've yet to hear a rational explanation as to why the amounts are usually so extravagant.

Whether the increase in skill factor is the square root is another matter entirely. This is an arbitrary value in the formula. You can use any power value between 0 and 1 you like. Different powers will change the relative difficulty level of higher buy-ins and more players. A higher power will bring them together, a lower one will widen the gap, with a power of 1 giving equal points regardless of buy-in or players, and a power of 0 giving a 1:1 relation between points and number of players and/or buy-in amount (twice the players = twice the points).

The square root (or power of 1/2) is smack in the middle and an obvious choice for a formula. One shouldn't read more into it than that.

In this formula, changing the power value will also affect the importance of rebuys and add-ons. Here too, a higher value (closer to 1) will decrease the importance, while a lower value (closer to 0) will increase the importance.
 
Last edited:
Not obvious if it's inapplicable to real-world reality. Some thought should be put into the ramifications, rather than just conveniently selecting a half-way point between two extremes.
 
Not obvious if it's inapplicable to real-world reality. Some thought should be put into the ramifications, rather than just conveniently selecting a half-way point between two extremes.

Actually, my post was wrong. (Did some more experimenting)

When choosing a power closer to 1, the importance of the number of players, rebuys, and add-ons decreases (down to 0 impact at the value of 1), and the importance of the buy-in increases (up to 1:1 impact at the value of 1).

When choosing a power closer to 0, the importance of the number of players, rebuys, and add-ons increases (up to 1:1 impact at the value of 0), and the importance of the buy-in decreases (down to 0 impact at the value of 0).

Again, the square root is an obvious choice for a formula, not the end all and be all of choices. Feel free to alter the power value to your liking, or to remove elements from the formula that you don't need or want, or in the case of the spreadsheet: Set all buy-in values to the same number, and/or don't enter values for rebuys and add-ons (or hide the respective rows and columns)**.

** Don't remove rows or columns or the formulas will stop working due to missing cell references (#REF!).
 
I'm not sure what SQRT is and is there a formula that gives points for busting someone out?
 
You left out the SQRT. You really need that, else you'll get unexpected results.

The original formula was:
Points = Prize Money / SQRT(Players x [Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On]) x 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)
In the formula where it reads: "Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On]) x 100" does it refer to the $ value of each buy in, rebuy, add-on or does it refer to the number of buy-ins, rebuys and add-ons that occur?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom